# data[].attributes.headline
Minority Kids Show Internalized Racial Bias at an Early Age

# data[].attributes.subject
Minority Kids Show Internalized Racial Bias at an Early Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New research from York University suggests that minority children as young as six years old show an implicit pro-White racial bias when exposed to images of both White and Black children. But how ingrained these biases become and whether they persist into late childhood and adulthood might depend on their social environment.

Faculty of Health Professor Jennifer Steele conducted two studies with graduate student Meghan George and her former PhD student Amanda Williams, now at the School of Education, University of Bristol. They were interested in looking at implicit racial bias in traditionally understudied populations. The goal of the research was to gain a better understanding of children's automatic racial attitudes.

In both studies children were asked to complete a child-friendly Implicit Association Test (IAT) which measures automatic associations that children may have toward different races. In this computer task, children were asked to pair pictures of people with positive or negative images as quickly as possible.

The first study was conducted in the large urban city of Toronto, Canada and included 162 South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, as well as Black minority children; children were divided into younger and older age groups with average ages of seven and nine respectively. Children were recruited from racially diverse areas with a large Black population within their schools and local community.

"We found that non-Black minority children living in a racially diverse part of Toronto showed an implicit pro-White bias from six years of age," says Steele. "However, what was interesting was that older children, who were on average nine years of age, showed less pro-White bias than younger children. This suggests to us that racial biases might not be as stable across development as researchers first thought. In this case, there could be factors in their racially diverse environment that are leading older children to show less bias, such as cross-race friends, mentors, positive Black role models, or a more Afrocentric curriculum that are helping to reinforce positive associations with this racial group."

In contrast, the second study was conducted in the urban city of Bandar Seri Begawan, in the small Southeast Asian country of Brunei Darussalam and included Malay majority and Chinese minority children and adults. These children had limited opportunities for direct contact with members of either White or Black outgroups in both their immediate environment, as well as the larger Southeast Asian cultural context of Brunei.

In this study, younger children, older children, and adults were quicker to pair positive pictures with White faces and negative pictures with Black faces on the IAT. However, the magnitude of bias was greater for adults.

Steele believes that this could be because they have had more time and opportunity than children to develop positive associations with people from White racial outgroups, due to their depiction and overrepresentation in high status roles in the news and online.

More research will be needed to determine what exactly led to these age differences in implicit racial bias. However, the results point to the role that the environment can play in shaping implicit racial attitudes. These results, combined with other research, indicate the importance of giving children the opportunity to connect with people from diverse groups early in life in order to challenge racial biases, says Steele.

"It is important for children to be exposed to diversity in their lives and for them to learn to appreciate this diversity. That can include reading stories with main characters from different backgrounds when people live in more racially homogeneous environments, or through positive experiences in multicultural cities," says Steele. "In our educational system, it is important that our materials reflect our increasingly diverse communities, and that children have the opportunity to learn about successful, contributing members of society from all walks of life. This can help to challenge racial biases and can help to contribute to a more equitable society for everyone."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
racial issues; child psychology; child development; add and adhd; educational psychology; learning disorders; k-12 education; literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minority children develop implicit racial bias in early childhood: Key to combating racial bias may be changing social environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research suggests that minority children as young as six years old show an implicit pro-White racial bias when exposed to images of both White and Black children. But how ingrained these biases become and whether they persist into late childhood and adulthood might depend on their social environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Attention from Adults Increases Kids' Empathy

# data[].attributes.subject
Attention from Adults Increases Kids' Empathy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For human beings to function socially, they need to be able to perceive, understand, and talk about others' mental states, such as beliefs, desires and intentions. There is no consensus among researchers as to when children develop this ability. Previous research indicates that it emerges around the age of four, but research at Lund University in Sweden shows that children can demonstrate this ability earlier -- within social situations that they experience together with an engaged adult.

With her colleagues, developmental psychologist Elia Psouni has studied the simplest form of this ability: children's understanding that other people may have a false belief about something -- because they lack information. As part of the study, children 33-to-54 months old were asked to predict what would happen next in an illustrated story that was suddenly interrupted. The researchers studied whether the children's ability to predict that the main figure in the story would make a "wrong move," since he held a false belief, would be affected by them hearing the story alone, in the company of an adult occupied with something else, or with an adult engaged in the story together with the child.

In two experiments, the children were shown a film developed by the researchers, about little Maxi whose father moves his favorite toy (an airplane) while Maxi is playing outdoors. When Maxi later on returns indoors and wants to fetch his plane, the film freezes, and the test-leader asks the child where he or she thinks Maxi will look for the airplane. In a third experiment, the children were read to from a picture book with the same story and illustrations, developed by the researchers, in which the last page was torn out.

Commonly, children under the age of four would respond that Maxi would look for the plane where it currently is, despite the fact that Maxi has no way of knowing that the airplane has been moved from its original location. However, in the Lund studies, even among the youngest children who heard the story together with an engaged adult (test-leader), there were impressively many who correctly predicted what would happen.

"Many children correctly detected and told us about Maxi's false belief, i.e. that Maxi would look for the plane where he actually left it. Surprisingly, these children did not remember the story as a whole better than other children, but specifically noticed and mentioned the fact that daddy moved the toy when Maxi was not there, indicating that they paid closer attention to this particular feature of the story," says Elia Psouni.

It is well known among researchers that children as young as two show some understanding for another person's perspective through their spontaneous actions, for example when small children are tricked, or help others look for things. On the other hand, young children do not seem to understand what they understand, and cannot explain the reasoning behind these spontaneous actions. The Lund studies now show that children can perceive, understand and reason about other people's perspectives earlier than previously thought.

"Small children's early understanding of perspective thus seems to require that they 'share perspectives' with someone else -- focusing on the same information at the same time," says Elia Psouni.

Interestingly, the studies showed that children who attended to the story on their own (watching the film or being read to) and children with an adult present but unengaged in the story failed in making the correct prediction equally often.

"Being in the same room as the child is not enough. It is the active engagement of the adult together with the child that makes the difference," says Elia Psouni.

In a new experiment, the researchers are now focusing on how children look at the film/book pictures in a particular way when they look together with an engaged adult. They are also exploring the newly developed methods' potential for use in practice, for example in pre-schools.

"This basic ability to understand that other people have their own beliefs, desires and intentions, as in the story of Maxi, is fundamental for children's development of broader social skills and critical thinking. Strengthening today's children in both of these perspectives is essential," concludes Elia Psouni.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
child psychology; child development; add and adhd; learning disorders; numeracy; literacy; parenting; educational psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attentive adults increase children's ability to empathize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For human beings to function socially, they need to be able to perceive, understand, and talk about others' mental states, such as beliefs, desires and intentions. There is no consensus among researchers as to when children develop this ability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new parenting study finds that the greater emotional control and problem-solving abilities a mother has, the less likely her children will develop behavioral problems, such as throwing tantrums or fighting.

The study also found mothers who stay in control emotionally are less likely to be verbally harsh with their children, and mothers who stay in control cognitively are less likely to have controlling parenting attitudes. Both harsh verbal parenting and controlling parenting attitudes are strongly associated with child conduct problems.

"When you lose control of your life, that impacts how you parent," said lead author Ali Crandall, assistant professor of public health at Brigham Young University. "That chaos both directly and indirectly influences your child's behavior."

For the study, newly published in academic journal Family Relations, Crandall and co-authors at Johns Hopkins University and Virginia Tech collected data from 152 mothers who had children between 3 and 7 years of age. The mothers ranged from 21 to 49 years old; 62 percent were married and nearly one-third had not earned more than a high school diploma.

The mother's emotional control was measured through a 10-item questionnaire asking how often subjects do things such as "have angry outbursts" or "overreact to small problems." Executive functioning, or cognitive control, was measured through a series of tasks. Executive functioning is what helps people manage chaos and achieve daily goals, and includes planning, problem solving and directing attention to what is most important.

Once researchers recorded the emotional control and executive functioning levels of the mothers, they then provided a series of questionnaires to identify parenting attitudes, levels of harsh verbal parenting and the amount of conduct problems their children exhibit.

They not only found that mothers who had higher emotional and cognitive control were less likely to report poor child conduct, such as fighting with other children or throwing tantrums when they don't get what they want, but they also found relationships between a mother's control abilities and parenting behaviors. For example, mothers with better emotional control were less likely to see their children's ambiguous behavior in the worst light.

Authors said the findings imply that to effectively reduce harsh verbal parenting and child behavioral problems, interventions should help mothers improve their emotional and cognitive control capacities.

"There are some clear 'signals' that our supply of self control is being run down -- when we are feeling distracted, irritable, and tired," said study co-author Kirby Deater-Deckard, professor of psychological and brain sciences at UMass-Amherst. "Parents can practice recognizing these signals in themselves when they are occurring, and respond by taking a 'time out' if at all possible -- just as we might do with our child when we notice these signals in them."

And while it is fairly difficult for an adult with a fully-developed brain to improve their executive functioning -- previous research has shown that the prefrontal cortex of the brain, where executive functioning is housed, is generally developed over the first two to three decades of life -- the authors said even small improvements in a few basic things can make a significant difference for parents.

"Getting enough sleep, exercising enough and eating well are all things that impact our executive functioning," Crandall said. "We should create healthy environments that help us operate at our best."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
child psychology; parenting; child development; infant and preschool learning; poverty and learning; educational policy; public health; environmental policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mothers with high emotional, cognitive control help their children behave: Study has implications for reducing harsh verbal parenting and poor child behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new parenting study finds that the greater emotional control and problem-solving abilities a mother has, the less likely her children will develop behavioral problems, such as throwing tantrums or fighting. The study also found mothers who stay in control emotionally are less likely to be verbally harsh with their children, and mothers who stay in control cognitively are less likely to have controlling parenting attitudes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If parents want to help their children develop language and literacy at a young age, reading bedtime stories together isn't the only key to success.

Research from Michigan State University found that a child's ability to self-regulate is a critical element in childhood language and literacy development, and that the earlier they can hone these skills, the faster language and literacy skills develop leading to better skills in the long run.

"Self-regulation is an umbrella term to define children's abilities to keep information in their working memories, pay attention to tasks and even to inhibit behaviors that might prevent them from accomplishing tasks," said Lori Skibbe, associate professor in the human development and family studies department and lead author of the study.

Through her research, Skibbe found that children who could self-regulate earlier had higher language and learning skills through at least second grade.

"We've known that there is a relationship between self-regulation and language and literacy, but our work shows that there is a lasting impact. The early advantage of self-regulation means children are learning these critical language and literacy skills earlier and faster, which sets the stage for developing additional skills earlier as well," Skibbe said.

Skibbe and her research team assessed 351 children twice a year from preschool to second grade, on both self-regulation and on language and literacy.

When assessing self-regulation, the children were asked to play a game that required them to follow prompts from the researchers.

"We asked them to touch their heads, shoulders, knees and toes, similar to the childhood 'Simon Says' game," Skibbe said. "Then, we reversed or mixed the commands to see who could follow based on the instructions they retained."

When assessing academic development, Skibbe looked at four language and literacy skills: comprehension; vocabulary; early decoding, or the ability to identify letters of the alphabet and read short words; and phonological awareness, or understanding the sound structure of language.

Some children are biologically predisposed to develop self-regulation skills earlier, Skibbe said, but there are things parents can do to help them in their development.

"By nature, humans are not effective multitaskers, and children need time where they focus on only one thing," she said.

"Parents need to be aware of how their children can regulate their own behavior based on what's going on around them. Parents can structure their home environment and routines in ways that support children," Skibbe said. A full night of sleep, playing games with children and having time without distractions in the background are things you might not think help language and literacy development, but they do."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
literacy; child development; learning disorders; k-12 education; dyslexia; child psychology; language acquisition; intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The secret to honing kids' language and literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers found that a child's ability to self-regulate is a critical element in childhood language and literacy development, and that the earlier they can hone these skills, the faster language and literacy skills develop leading to better skills in the long run.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a parent, one of the best things you can do for your child is help them develop what's known as a "secure attachment style."

You'll know your child has a secure style if s/he is a confident explorer but regularly returns to you for connection and comfort.

Having a secure style makes forming and maintaining relationships easier throughout a person's life course. This is because people with secure styles trust their "attachment figures" (whether that's a parent, teacher, or romantic partner) to provide support when they need it. The secure child feels empowered to explore the world because they know that when they need to retreat back to Mom/Dad (or their future relationship partner), that person will be there with open arms.
Check out the following simple, practical tips for raising a securely attached child:

Helping a child develop a secure style is about your child, not a generic child. It's mostly about responding to their cues. The most basic level of this is being responsive to their physical cues. Help you child learn how to accurately recognize when they're hungry, tired etc.

Make sure your child knows they can get your attention when they're feeling frightened, or want to share positive emotions. The latter is especially important. Emotional support is not just about when things go wrong. Responsiveness to their positive emotions is equally important.

Use eye contact as a way of connecting with your child.

Greet your child mindfully after a separation, such as if you've been running errands without them. Pay attention to when they've finished reconnecting with you. For example, if you work outside the home, notice how much reconnecting time your child needs with you before you get started on dinner or get distracted with other activities. This may vary day to day.

If you mess up, apologize, but not excessively. Attachment style is fundamentally about trust. Consider how genuine apologies enhance trust in adult relationships. Apologies show that the apologizer cares about your feelings. Building trust and secure attachment are not about never getting things wrong as a parent. It's about repairing trust when you do.

Don't sneak out the door when your child isn't looking. Be predictable. If your child is naturally anxious, routines will help your child know what to expect. For example, routines for parting and greeting each other, or routines for staying at Grandma's house.

Source: Unsplash. Creative Commons Zero.

Children with avoidant styles look like they don't care when their parent leaves them but studies of their physiology tell a different story. If your child seems very self-reliant, to the point that they barely notice when you leave them, consider that it may be that their distress isn't noticeable rather than it's non-existent. Still, make sure to follow the other advice here.

Children who are both anxious and conscientious will be especially sensitive to getting "growled at," or being in a situation in which they're scared to tell an adult what they need. For example, if they're scared to tell a caregiver when they need to go to the bathroom, or that they've spilled a drink and need help to clean it up. Work with your child's nature to help them understand that they can come to you when they need you and that you being angry occasionally doesn't impact on that.

A child's temperament plays a role in which attachment style they develop. If your child is naturally anxious, they'll need more help from you to understand their anxiety, so that they can become a confident explorer.

Once your child seems securely attachment, you can relax a bit. Secure is the most common attachment style.

Dr. Alice Boyes is the author of The Anxiety Toolkit. Get the first chapter free by subscribing to my blog posts here. You can also read my full post archive here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a parent, one of the best things you can do for your child is help them develop what's known as a "secure attachment style." You'll know your child has a secure style if s/he is a confident explorer but regularly returns to you for connection and comfort.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Delayed gratification displayed by your child is one of the most sought-after prizes of parents with aspirations for their children. Whether or not you are able to control the urge at an early age to immediately eat a single marshmallow placed in front of you and wait a little longer to enjoy the second marshmallow, is a well-known psychological test.

The marshmallow test, is seen as the ultimate psychological litmus test, demonstrating a young child's ability to exhibit delayed gratification. The reasoning behind delayed gratification and its longer-term benefits became part of many parents' belief-set following the seminal study on child delayed gratification carried out in the 60's, with the researchers going on to show in a follow-up study in the 90's, that those children best able to resist temptation enjoying the fruits of their self-control with a second marshmallow, outperformed their less-patient co-respondents in many later aspects of cognition and behaviour ¹

Unfortunately, as recipients of these insights through books, social media, folklore and the advice of child psychologists, we rarely delve deeper to understand the nuances that influence the results of such research studies. Sample size, effect size and degree of statistical significance are all able to significantly influence the results. For example, only 50 respondents were used in the original research. For psychology research, this represents a relatively small sample size. Was the study sufficiently powered? How reliable were the results? Was the effect size such that the results could be reliably reproduced? Moreover, the sample of children was recruited from the siblings of the staff at Harvard. Hardly a representative sample, although one could argue that at least they reflected a relatively narrow range of social economic backgrounds.

Fast forward to earlier this week and a new study ² has been carried out that appears to indicate that the main claim of this longitudinal study, namely that the ability to apply delayed gratification in life correlates with substantial benefits, appears to be under a cloud. The international press is having a field day. In essence, the new study appears to show that the effect of delayed gratification has been overstated and that delayed gratification displayed by a young child may not be such a valuable trait for indicating future performance in later life as first thought.

However, it is important to understand how the covariates in both the original and replicated studies (those factors that also vary within the sample population) have been accounted for. This appears to have been carefully calculated in the second but less so the original study. Importantly, this latest study makes two significant claims. The first that their findings (made with a far larger sample size and arguably more reliable) showed that the strength of correlation between the ability to wait for the second marshmallow and achievement at aged 15 was only half that of the original study. This could well be reflective of the first study's smaller sample size and is perhaps not surprising in itself. However, more interesting are the findings that socioeconomic class defined by home environment, family background, and early cognitive ability was observed to reduce this correlation by a further two thirds.

What should one make of this? One could argue that rising inequality, a declining US education system for the disadvantaged or simply being born to smart and successful parents is now more a driver of future achievement and success than ever. Taking a philosophical stance one might also postulate that this study indicates that achieving the American dream is not just about what you are willing to forgo, but who your parents are and where you went to school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Delayed gratification displayed by your child is one of the most sought-after prizes of parents with aspirations for their children. Whether or not you are able to control the urge at an early age to immediately eat a single marshmallow placed in front of you and wait a little longer to enjoy the second marshmallow, is a well-known psychological test.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adolescence is that time between the start of puberty and the acceptance of adult roles in society. In the developed world, this period of life usually ranges from around 13 to the early twenties. It's a time when young people begin asserting their independence and forming their first deep attachments outside the family. And for many adolescents, it's also a time for taking risks and exploring new experiences.

Many people blame raging hormones for teenagers' reckless behavior, and no doubt that's one reason. Testosterone, the hormone of sex drive, aggression, and risk-taking behavior, surges in the years after puberty. But not all teens drive fast, do crazy stunts on their roller blades, try out drugs, or engage in risky sex. So there must be other explanations.

Some scholars argue that adolescence is a manufactured phenomenon of Western society, a by-product of keeping our children dependent far longer than is natural or necessary. Because of the lengthy education required to become a productive member of modern society, most young people in the developed world don't achieve complete independence until their mid-twenties. And since we don't expect adult-like behavior from our teens, we don't get it from them either.

This wasn't always the case. Before the twentieth century, most people in the world got married, started a family, worked at their farm or craft, and generally acted as responsible adults during the period we now call "adolescence." Life was short, and making a living was hard. Through most of history, the average person became a grandparent around the same age that quite a few dual- career couples today are just contemplating having their first (and probably only) child.

As with all issues in psychology, the question of adolescence comes down to nature and nurture. On the nature side, we point to hormonal changes and brain maturation. And on the nurture side, we point to societal expectations. No doubt, both factors are important.

It can also help to consider adolescence from an evolutionary perspective. Traits and behaviors that seem maladaptive in the present often served our ancestors well during the hundreds of thousands of years they lived on the African Savanna as hunters and gatherers. In a recent article, British psychologist Sarah-Jayne Blakemore argues that adolescence evolved as a developmental period in which young people build the social networks they'll need to be successful adults.

In other words, the reckless behavior we associate with adolescence isn't its key feature, but rather it's a product of peer-group influence. For instance, teens in an experiment in a driving simulator drove with a reasonable level of caution when alone in the car. But when they had a friend in the front passenger seat, they took far more risks at the wheel. Perhaps their buddy egged them on, or maybe they were just showing off.

Other research shows that teens take more risks, such as drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana, when they're with their peers compared to when they're alone. These results clearly indicate a social component to the risk-taking behavior we associate with the teenage years.

Incidentally, adolescent risk-taking isn't a uniquely human feature. Mammals in general display more reckless behavior during the period between sexual maturation and their first sexual encounter. For example, adolescent male mice reared in a lab consume more alcohol when they're with their peers compared to when they're alone. In contrast, adult male mice (that is, those with sexual experience) moderate their alcohol consumption whether they're "home alone" or "out with the guys."

Adolescents, both mice and humans, are encouraged by their peers to take more risks. It could very well be that testosterone is the culprit here. Young males of many species engage in intrasexual competition for mates. Risk-taking-and risk-surviving-is how males establish their rank in the pecking order and demonstrate to the females that they've "got the goods." And since males have to compete for mates, it's no wonder that testosterone modulates both sexual and aggressive behavior.

But human adolescents aren't just influenced by the presence of their peers. They're also greatly concerned with what others in their age group think about them, even when they're alone. In one study, children, adolescents, and young adults were asked to rate the risk of various scenarios. After they made each judgment, they were shown the rating that another person had supposedly made. This rating differed considerably from their own, and they were asked if they'd like to revise their initial judgment.

Both children and adults wanted to change their rating if they were told the other person was an adult, but not if the other person was a teenager. In other words, children and grownups trust the judgment of an adult over that of an adolescent. However, the teenagers' behavior was the opposite. They changed their rating only if the other person was another teenager, but not if an adult. What do grownups know anyway? Clearly, this is the typical adolescent attitude.

Even brain activity is different in adolescents compared with adults. When teenagers were asked to perform various tasks while in an fMRI, areas of their brain that process social information were more active when they were told their peers would be monitoring their progress. Knowing that others were watching them had less effect on the brain activity of older adults.

Blakemore proposes that the key feature of adolescence is an increased desire to fit into a social network. If this is true, then many of the risky behaviors that teens engage in are likely due to peer pressure. She also points out that the high incidence of depression in adolescence seems to revolve around this strong need for social inclusion as well. After all, real or imagined exclusion from their peer group is a common complaint among teens suffering from mood disorders.

We may blame the ills of adolescence on peer pressure, but Blakemore points out that peer pressure can also be an instrument for bringing out the best in teenagers. She reports on several studies conducted in high schools in the United States and Great Britain. One involved an anti- bullying program, and another an anti-smoking campaign. When popular students in the schools were recruited to lead these campaigns, bullying and smoking behavior decreased substantially compared to those schools where adults led the campaigns. Likewise, more students volunteered for community service when it was seen as the popular thing to do.

Adolescence doesn't have to be a time of storm and stress. In fact, many teenagers successfully channel their boundless energy and enthusiasm into athletics, music, and academics, and these efforts pay dividends long into their adult lives. If we grownups understand the overriding need they have for peer-group acceptance, we can arrange situations in which our teens thrive. It's just that we've got to let them think it was all their idea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Your Teenager Does Such Crazy Things

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolescence is that time between the start of puberty and the acceptance of adult roles in society. In the developed world, this period of life usually ranges from around 13 to the early twenties. It's a time when young people begin asserting their independence and forming their first deep attachments outside the family.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Help Kids Take Someone Else's Perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Help Kids Take Someone Else's Perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Helping young children get in touch with their own feelings, and those of others, can be a challenge. When a child acts unkindly, parents and teachers ask often ask, "How do you think you would feel if someone did that to you?" We ask the question that way, rather than saying, "How do you think you made him feel?" because we know that young children have limited perspective-taking abilities. A question about their own feelings is easier for them to answer than a question that requires them to consider how somebody else feels. Yet, the ability to walk in someone else's shoes is an essential skill for social development.

The best way that you can help your child develop these skills is to talk frequently about the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people your child encounters in everyday life, as well as the characters in books you read together (or movies or television shows you watch together). Storybooks offer great opportunities to discuss the feelings of characters because, on average, children's books focus on social interactions or feelings every three sentences. Unless your life often feels like a soap opera, the conversations that you have with your child - when they are not about books - probably include much less information about emotions!

Talking about the feelings of a character in a book, television show, or movie is also helpful because it gives your child a chance to talk about emotions when his or her own emotions are not running high. It is much easier to talk about hypothetical bullies, first days of school, or disagreements at home than it is to talk about the real deal. And I've found that these hypothetical situations can then provide parents and children avenues for talking about the complicated problems that do come up at home or on the playground.

For instance, when my son begins to order us around the house (like yelling, "Pancakes NOW!" one recent Saturday morning at 5:40 AM), my husband and I often tell him lightly that he sounds like Mr. Paine (the "terribly demanding" boss from Chris Van Dusen's Circus Ship) or like the entitled archduke from Mac Barnett's Extra Yarn. This strategy works much better than simply telling him that he is being rude or making us feel a certain way, because comparing him to the bad guys in these stories reminds him of how those bad guys make the protagonists feel. He likes the protagonists, and he wants them to be happy. And so, with just that amount of support, he is often able to make the connection... and realize that WE are the protagonists in the pancakes story now and he is being the villain. Helping him gain that perspective without forcing him to say the word "please" lets him begin to rewrite the story of our morning and cast himself in a new role.

Because stories rely on drama, using books or other forms of media to open up a dialogue about emotions can be relatively easy. Get started by asking simple questions about your child's own thoughts and feelings, like:

What part of this story made you laugh the hardest?

What picture or scene do you think was scariest/sweetest/saddest? Why?

If you were [character's name], how would you have felt when..."

By listening to the information they share, and then responding to tell them about your own reactions to the book, you can begin to discuss feelings and situations that you may not have talked about together before. You can also help them begin to think about the characters' different points of view by asking questions about why they acted certain ways and whether the way they acted helped them accomplish their goals. Give it a shot! Not only can it lead to some interesting conversations about the books you are reading together, but it might also help your child play the hero instead of the villain in adventures around your home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Stories: How Children Build Perspective-Taking Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Helping young children get in touch with their own feelings, and those of others, can be a challenge. When a child acts unkindly, parents and teachers ask often ask, "How do you think you would feel if someone did that to you?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I do understand, sadly, why men - and their real problems - don't get the attention they deserve by the academy, the media, and government (what Michael Gurian calls "The Big Three" in his 2017 book, Saving Our Sons). But what I still can't fathom is why boys don't either, except that they are men-to-be.

Warren Farrell, who has been concerned about men for well over 30 years, has recently turned his attention to boys, and the result is The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It (which he has coauthored with John Gray). Actually, worry about boys is not new. In fact, a cover story in Newsweek magazine in early 2006 is titled "The Boy Crisis: At Every Level of Education, They're Falling Behind: What to Do."

So how is it that a problem recognized more than a decade ago - even longer, if you consider Christina Hoff Sommers' 2000 book, The War Against Boys - has barely been touched by the "big three"? I believe, and have for years, that a major reason is that with women viewed as a major cause for progressives, the problems faced by boys (and men) have been more or less ignored. But not by Warren Farrell, a liberal Democrat, who has gone where the data and his conscience have taken him. Farrell was early into second wave feminism, and was on the governing board of the National Organization for Women in the early 1970s. When he did talk and write about men, it was in that context, and I first heard of him when I came upon his 1975 book, The Liberated Man, which was lauded by, among others, Gloria Steinem.

But he experienced a crisis of conscience when he saw that NOW clearly favored mothers over fathers in cases of divorce and custody battles. As he writes early in The Boy Crisis:

"As NOW and the perspective of feminists went mainstream, especially in the universities, my speaking career boomed. I was delighted that the expansion of opportunities for women had begun to exceed my expectations.

"Later in the seventies, as I began to witness a sharp increase in divorces, I also noticed that many of the children were living primarily with their moms. The cultural meme about dads was focused on dad's money, not on his involvement. So when dads did not pay child support, we labeled them "deadbeats." I accepted that meme. Until I also listened to these dads in my men's groups.

"Once I listened, I was struck by how much the dads cared. When they vented their anger about discrimination against them in family court, they sounded legalistic, angry, and bitter. But when I asked them about their children, tears flowed down their cheeks. Their anger was but a mask for vulnerability - the powerlessness they felt as words like "visitation" and "custody" made them feel like second-class citizens, and how being able to see their children only every other weekend made them feel that anything they had to contribute would be washed away between visits.

"I watched some of the dads spiral downward into depression, and others desperately try to finance court fights to be equally involved dads. Some of the dads couldn't afford the legal fight. Other dads tried to earn enough money, only to feel they then didn't have the time to be equally involved dads."

Later in the book, he writes that feminist leadership - including Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem - understood the importance of fathers. Steinem is quoted as saying, "What the world needs now is more women at work and more dads at home." And he writes, "Betty Friedan was even more father-positive. While the first stage of Friedan's message, The Feminine Mystique, was about the need for women's liberation, Friedan's The Second Stage was about the need for the liberation of men to complete the liberation of women. In this book Friedan predicted women's career goals would never be achieved if men were not more incorporated into the fathering role."

But the rank and file membership of NOW felt that the organization was for them and their rights as mothers, and thus the organization has never advocated for the importance of fathers. As Farrell puts it, "Mothers' rights trumped equal rights. Politics trumped equality."

Farrell's overwhelming concern then - and now - and one absolutely captured in this book, is the best interests of the children. And as he points out with many references, not only does research clearly show how important fathers are in children's lives, but their importance is even greater in the lives of boys. A major section of the book is titled "Dad-Deprived Boys vs. Dad-Enriched Boys," and the evidence he marshals here for the importance of fathers is impressive.

Another key concept in The Boy Crisis has to do with male disposability. For most of the last 30 plus years, his focus has been men, with his most famous book being The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, published in 1993. While his title was certainly provocative, his subtitle was an example - and there have been many in his life - where Warren Farrell was ahead of his time.

In fact, he is a very important figure in the cultural history of the late 20th and early 21st century if only because of that extremely important insight concerning male disposability, a topic which runs through The Boy Crisis. For all of our history, we have taken for granted that whether it's war, dangerous jobs, and, more recently, brain-threatening games like football, it has been our husbands, fathers, and sons, who have borne almost all the burden. This directly relates to evolutionary psychology, since for species survival, the survival of individual men is far less important than that of individual women.

But today, in our actually less violent world (cite Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature), Farrell sees the conflict for boys - and how they are raised - between what he calls "heroic intelligence" and " health intelligence." The former is the call boys feel to take risks, often - but not always - for the greater good. For better or worse, it's what he calls "the (boy's) need to prove himself." The latter is what he needs to do to stay healthy and live a long life. It's "what he absorbs about how to take care of himself." He summarizes the conflict with these words: "A boy who tries to prove himself is at risk of losing himself."

Just as we have recognized for many decades now that women's biology is not their destiny, that they can work outside the home, and serve in the military, and do all the other things once seen as primarily or strictly male, so too must we recognize that men's biology does not absolutely require putting themselves in harm's way. However, just as women in the workplace still feel a strong pull from home, so too do men, starting in boyhood, feel that pull toward heroic courage. Any parent who has watched their son take risks that their daughters typically do not, knows that terrible conflict between letting "boys be boys" (in the sense of risk and adventure) and reining them in.

Farrell recognized early on that boys and men are full-fledged human beings who have long been seen as disposable. While not overlooking the occasional need for heroism, Farrell is trying to tip the balance more toward the overlooked need for "health intelligence." While he, himself, does not have any sons (and only one very young grandson), he understands the conflict that parents (and grandparents) feel about what to encourage and discourage in their sons (and grandsons). With three sons and five grandsons, I have felt this directly for more than 50 years.

There is much more in The Boy Crisis, including material on how boys and young men are lagging in education, not just in our country but across the developed world; the "purpose void" which so many young men feel; and the overuse of medications to treat ADHD in boys (a section written by John Gray). But for me, the crucial importance of fathers and the need to put a high value on our sons' physical and mental health stand out.

Warren Farrell has been ahead of the curve in recognizing that we must cherish our males. And in this, his latest work, the focus is on the youngest of them, our boys. After all, they are a vital part of our future, and attention must be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attention Must Be Paid: Warren Farrell and the Boy Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I do understand, sadly, why men - and their real problems - don't get the attention they deserve by the academy, the media, and government (what Michael Gurian calls "The Big Three" in his 2017 book, Saving Our Sons). But what I still can't fathom is why boys don't either, except that they are men-to-be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This weekend I celebrated my daughter's 14-years birthday with our entire family. At one point I'm in the garden with my beautiful 3-years-old niece who was climbing trees for the first time. She is used to climbing on playgrounds, but she had never tried climbing a tree. A chair helped her reach the first possible place to get a foothold. She handled everything herself, but in case she lost her balance, I had a hand close to her. From here she climbed about 1 1/2 meters up, as she easily angled around the smaller branches that were in the way. From a point where I could still reach her from the ground, she threw herself out into my arms, where I gave her a big applauding swing. She whistled and was delighted and it was obvious that she felt very happy about the fact that she actually mastered something new. She repeated it again and again until we had to return to the other guests.
Play Is Not A Lazy Luxury
To get outside and move freely is great for most children. For some it is a natural element to be outside and for others it can feel more challenging. In my book: Play The Danish Way - A Guide to Raise Balanced, Resilient and Healthy Children through Play I emphasize why play is so valuable and why free unstructured play should be acknowledged as a natural ingredient in every child's life. In Denmark play is not seen as some lazy luxury but as a developmental cornerstone. In play kids are free to explore their full potential and develop their individual talents, without the constraints of adulthood.
Foster Happiness
Playing outside can seem dangerous, yes, but so many things can happen all the time and today we spent most of the time protecting our children from bad things. By shielding them from the "natural hazards and accidents" - by not allowing them to use their imagination and play in nature, we risk having children who will be paralyzed and frightened.

Life is about getting skinned knees as well. It is about falling down and getting back up. No matter what, these experiences are small victories, which help shape resilience in a child in the long term. And resilience has been proven to be one of the greatest factors in cultivating more happiness. By overprotecting our children there is a risk we create children who do not dare to use and explore their imagination, fearing that something might happen - without even trying. We have to remember that it is usually our (adults') perceptions that prevent children from trying things out and play freely.

My sweet niece's satisfaction while mastering a new skill was precious. Her eyes tickled and she had red cheeks and I am sure she felt absolutely happy in the moment. She could have continued forever. I am convinced that play will soon be seen as the most educating practice in the future. And it does not cost a cent. At most it asks for a little presence and attention from us.
Let's Go Wild
I hope we together can break the chains of a planned structure of life and let our kids' imagination run wild and instead find structure within. I hope, for the sake of our children's future, that we understand the importance of raising strong and resilient human beings, that will develop such deep and strong roots, that will not be torn up when hard wind rages and things around them crack.
One Tip To Get Started:
Go outside - nature is beautiful and it is a never-ending playground with all the facilities that's needed. Maybe invite family members to come play. Play connects and makes everybody happier in the long run.

This article was originally published on Ibens website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This weekend I celebrated my daughter's 14-years birthday with our entire family. At one point I'm in the garden with my beautiful 3-years-old niece who was climbing trees for the first time. She is used to climbing on playgrounds, but she had never tried climbing a tree.

# data[].attributes.headline
Music and Chess Do Not Enhance Cognitive Ability

# data[].attributes.subject
Music and Chess Do Not Enhance Cognitive Ability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most parents want their children to reach their academic potential, and they're willing to go to great effort and expense to help achieve that goal. In recent years, a number of researchers have offered evidence suggesting that two activities in particular are especially effective at improving children's cognitive abilities - playing chess and learning a musical instrument.

But before you send your child to chess camp or band camp, please read on.

Scientists understand that it can be difficult to assess the significance of a single study in isolation. They prefer waiting for other researchers to replicate experiments before accepting reported effects as valid. Of course, scientists are also human, and naturally they want to promote their pet theories. But collectively, scientists try to keep each other's biases in check.

Journalists, in contrast, have less interest in scientific objectivity. Instead, they want to report on a hot story before they get scooped. And studies that show children getting a cognitive boost from learning chess or a musical instrument make for good copy. So parents, who get their information about the latest research on child-rearing from the mainstream media, can easily be duped by shoddy science.

In a recent article, British psychologists Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet report on two meta-analyses they recently performed. (A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for comparing and contrasting the data from a large number of studies.) These researchers evaluated the existing evidence on whether playing chess or music boosts children's cognitive abilities or academic performance.

Usually when researchers begin exploring a new topic, some studies will find the proposed effect, and others won't. Or some studies will find a big effect, while others find only a little one. A meta-analysis can uncover the overall trends in massive amounts of data, and it can identify whether each study is likely to have produced reliable results.

Studies have conclusively shown that children who play chess or a musical instrument score higher on intelligence tests than their peers who don't. So maybe there's good reason to think these activities are cognitive boosters. But we have to keep in mind that these studies are correlational, and that correlation does not imply causation. It's also possible that smart kids are simply attracted to intellectually demanding tasks, like chess and music.

The idea that playing chess or a musical instrument can boost general intelligence or academic performance is based on a concept known as transfer of learning. This is the idea that skills learned in one area automatically carry over to another one. For example, educators long believed that the rigors of learning Latin would help students in their math courses. In 1901, noted psychologists Edward Thorndike and Robert Woodworth conducted a series of experiments on the transfer of learning that exposed this false belief for what it was.

What Thorndike and Woodworth found was that if two tasks are similar, some abilities can transfer from one task to the other. They called this near transfer. So, if you already know Latin, it will make learning Italian much easier, because the two are related languages. But far transfer between two unrelated fields simply doesn't occur: Learning Latin doesn't help you understand algebra or geometry.

Thorndike and Woodworth thought they'd laid the mistaken notion of far transfer to rest. But hope springs eternal, and the idea that one task can train your brain to make you smarter overall is just too appealing to give up. And so Sala and Gobet conducted their meta-analyses to determine whether Thorndike and Woodworth had dismissed the idea of far transfer too soon.

The first meta-analysis examined a wide range of studies reporting on whether music instruction impacts overall academic performance. What Sala and Gobet found was that the size of the effect decreased as the experiment became more tightly controlled. In other words, researchers who used slipshod methods generally found big boosts in academic performance, while those who used stringent procedures found little or no academic advantage to learning a musical instrument. A second meta-analysis of studies looking at chess and school performance yielded similar results.

Sala and Gobet concluded that neither chess nor music is a cognitive booster, as has often been claimed. They also cite other studies that likewise found no increase in general cognitive abilities for people who play video games, in spite of recent press reports to the contrary.

More than a century after Thorndike and Woodworth reported their seminal studies on the transfer of learning, claims of brain boosters still abound. However, this most recent analysis of the data merely confirms what psychologists have already known for more than a century: Far transfer simply doesn't occur. Playing video games doesn't boost your memory or attention outside of the game. And making children play chess or music doesn't make them smarter.

If your child shows an interest in chess or music - or soccer or computers or any other cognitively demanding pursuit - by all means encourage it. These are all engaging activities worth pursuing in their own right. But don't foist these "brain-boosting" tasks upon them. If you do, your child is more likely to develop a general dislike for learning, in a sense "busting" their brains instead of "boosting" them.
Correction: In a previous version of this post, I erroneously claimed that "rigorously conducted meta-analyses" challenged the effectiveness of brain fitness software such as Posit Science. In fact, no such meta-analyses exist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Music and Chess Do Not Enhance Cognitive Ability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most parents want their children to reach their academic potential, and they're willing to go to great effort and expense to help achieve that goal. In recent years, a number of researchers have offered evidence suggesting that two activities in particular are especially effective at improving children's cognitive abilities - playing chess and learning a musical instrument.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Kids be Allowed to Take Mental Health Days?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Kids be Allowed to Take Mental Health Days?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last summer, the story about a CEO who encouraged employees to take mental health days went viral. It led to numerous media stories about the importance of taking care of your mental health - including taking a mental health day when you need one.

But what about kids? Should you let your child take a mental health day from school? The answer isn't a simple yes or no.

In my 15 years as a psychotherapist, I've encouraged a few parents to let their kids take an occasional mental health day from school. But I've also had to convince many other parents that their children's mental health days were doing more harm than good.
How to Know If Your Child Needs a Mental Health Day
You wouldn't question keeping your child home from school if she had the flu. But it's harder to recognize when your child needs to stay home for mental health reasons.

It's important for kids to power through some discomfort, like going to school even when they're afraid of giving a presentation, or when they don't have their math homework done. There's a lot of value in showing them that they're stronger than they think.

But when they're feeling so bad that they're struggling to function, and going to school is likely to make it worse, a mental health day might be just what the doctor ordered.

Letting kids take the occasional mental health day - maybe once or twice a year - could reinforce to them that it's vital to take care of their minds as well as their bodies. It can also be a great opportunity to help them sharpen their emotional skills and build the mental muscle they need to stay strong.
How to Make a Mental Health Day Helpful
If you decide to let your child take a day off from school for a little emotional recuperation, make the most of her time off. Turn the day into an opportunity to help your child for the long haul, not just something that will make her feel better for 24 hours.

A good way to spend a mental health day is to use the time to:

Solve a problem. If your child is stressed out by a specific problem, like being bullied on the playground, or if he's fallen so far behind in one of his classes it looks like he won't be able to pass, you might be able to turn a mental health day into a problem-solving opportunity. Schedule a meeting with the school, sit down and problem-solve with your child, or meet with people who can help.

Practice self-care. If your child is exhausted, overworked, or rundown, an occasional day off may help him charge his batteries. It could be an opportunity to jumpstart healthier habits, like going to sleep earlier, eating nutritious food, and getting plenty of exercise.

See a professional. If your child is struggling to attend school, seek professional help. Schedule an appointment with your pediatrician to talk about your child's mental health needs. A physician may refer you to a mental health professional if it's warranted.

Avoid These Activities on a Mental Health Day
Using a mental health day to escape reality or avoid problems, however, could actually do more harm than good. After all, the problems will still be there tomorrow, and going back to school will be even more challenging if the issues are left unaddressed.

Avoid these activities on a mental health day:

Binge-watching TV. You might think a relaxing day in front of the TV or a chance to unwind playing video games will help. But research shows binge-watching TV is bad for mental health. A 2015 study published in International Communications Association found that binge-watching TV increases feelings of loneliness and depression.

Sleeping all day. Staying in bed or being inactive all day could worsen your child's symptoms. Even if your child is sleep-deprived, don't let her sleep too much. You'll disrupt her sleep cycle, and it will be even more difficult for her to get back on track.

Rewarding your child for staying home. While staying home shouldn't be a punishment, you also don't want your child to think she's skipping school to have fun. Resist the temptation to take your child out for lunch or to spend the day at the playground when she's having a rough time. Doing so could send the wrong message.

Make Mental Strength Building a Priority
If your child needs more than the occasional mental health day, it could be a sign that he needs better coping skills, more guidance, and professional assistance to help him feel better.

You can't prevent all mental health problems, just like you can't always prevent physical illness. But you can take steps to help your child build the mental strength she needs to stay as emotionally fit as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Kids Be Allowed to Take Mental Health Days?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last summer, the story about a CEO who encouraged employees to take mental health days went viral. It led to numerous media stories about the importance of taking care of your mental health - including taking a mental health day when you need one. But what about kids?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do we all begin life on an equal playing field, with a more-or-less similar starting package that makes us all masters of our own destiny? Not quite. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that much of who we are may come from how we started. Recent research from the areas of human development and neurobiology highlights the importance of early environments, shedding light on the pathways through which early disadvantage can shape health and well-being later in life. These findings make it crucial that we understand the effect of early environments on shaping our wellbeing across the lifespan.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Although we celebrate these words as central to American ideals, they have been often misinterpreted to assume that we all start off on equal ground, with equal resources, and equal access to a level playing field. But this is a myth. In fact, the words introducing our nation's Declaration of Independence may prevent us from achieving a true understanding of problems inherent in our national system. Early environments play an important role in determining how we develop mentally, physically, socially. A growing body of research has tied exposure to neglectful or risky early environments to a wide array of serious, negative outcomes for both mental and physical wellbeing. This work has uncovered links between growing up in a disadvantaged context and things like premature physiological aging, enhanced vulnerability to disease (both acute and chronic), and increased likelihood of early mortality. Yikes.

But how are risky developmental contexts linked with poor health outcomes later in life? Recent neurodevelopmental research indicates that our early environments can influence our well-being later in life by shaping (1) our neurophysiology and (2) what skills we are able to acquire.

In addition to posing direct threats to our health (e.g., by way of physical abuse or neglect), early exposure to adversity can harm our mental and physical well-being by contributing to neurophysiological dysregulation. In order to navigate the threatening and stressful circumstances created by risky early environments, children's developing physiological and neural systems are put through the wringer as they are forced to repeatedly try and adapt to a high-stakes, high- stress context. This early stress on a person's biological systems increases the likelihood of neural or physiological dysregulations that, in turn, can contribute to serious consequences down the road and continue to harm individuals long after they have escaped their risky childhood environment.

In addition to its detrimental effects on our neurophysiology, exposure to early life adversity can harm our ability to develop key skills necessary for happiness and health later in life. Children growing up in adverse environments often lack the opportunities, role models, and/or resources needed to learn and develop critical self-regulatory skills. By missing out on these key skills, children may find themselves unable to function successfully in social contexts or to navigate a wide array of stressful events that necessitate adequate coping skills. They may struggle to create and enlist social support, modulate their effect, effectively read social cues, or appropriately handle emotional interpersonal situations - skills which are difficult (if not impossible) to recoup later in life. As we all know, good social functioning is critical not only to our ability to succeed in life (think job interviews or networking) but also to our broader health and wellbeing (for example, people with stronger social connections are generally healthier and live longer).

By contributing to neurophysiological dysregulations and harming individuals' ability to develop critical social and self-regulatory skills, early adversity creates a compounding pathway of harm and risk that affects individuals across the lifespan. But for some people, this equation may be even worse. Recent research has indicated that some genes may make individuals more reactive (or susceptible) to their environment, social context, and other external developmental inputs. For these individuals, negative early environments can be truly devastating. Perhaps now we can start to see how this whole "created equal" thing might not be nearly so self-evident or so truthful as we had originally hoped.

Before we go ahead and tear up the Declaration of Independence for being woefully un-"woke", it is important to reflect on the spirit in which those words were written. It is unlikely that the authors truly believed that everyone is born into situations of identical fortune. We should perhaps rephrase their idea for ourselves as, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created with inherent equal worth." With this important reframing, we allow that unequal fortune gives us an unequal opportunity and ability, but emphasize that this does not determine our value as people or how deserving we are of empathy, compassion, and kindness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do we all begin life on an equal playing field, with a more-or-less similar starting package that makes us all masters of our own destiny? Not quite. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that much of who we are may come from how we started.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Research Shows that Babies Think Logically

# data[].attributes.subject
New Research Shows that Babies Think Logically

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beloved pediatrician Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, who died recently at the age of 99, established his reputation by arguing that babies are not "lumps of clay," as was the prevailing view when he entered the medical field in the 1940s, but rather complex expressive beings whose behavior is "purposeful and meaningful." In the decades since Brazelton first began making a case for the purposefulness of the infant mind, research on infant cognition has demonstrated that it is even more complex than he ever imagined. A new study just published in Science reveals that babies as young as twelve months old are actually capable of syllogistic reasoning.

Cesana-Arlotti et al. conducted a series of experiments to investigate the logical processes behind preverbal infants' continuous efforts to understand how the world around them works. Beginning with the premise that infants are capable of developing, testing, and adapting hypotheses about uncertain future events, the researchers sought to characterize the "basic logical representations" with which they might formulate such hypotheses, given the fact that they have not yet developed the language skills which are often considered a prerequisite for such logical thinking. In order to identify the framework upon which such baby reasoning is constructed, the researchers focused on "one simple logical representation and rule: disjunction (either A or B) and disjunctive syllogism (not A, therefore B)." In other words, they designed their experiments to see whether or not infants were capable of reasoning through the process of elimination.

Infants of 12 and 19 months of age were presented with computerized vignettes in which two different objects, such as a dinosaur and a flower, were shown being hidden behind a wall. Once the objects were out of sight, a cup entered the picture and scooped up one of the objects and brought it out from behind the wall, but only the top part of the object-identical to the top of the other object-was visible in the cup. Next, the wall was lowered, revealing the object behind it-the object that had not been lifted up by the cup. Finally, the object in the cup emerged and was revealed to be either A) the object that was not behind the wall (as would logically be expected), or B) an object identical to the object behind the wall (a violation of logical expectation). Or, in dinosaur and flower terms, if it was the dinosaur that was scooped up and the flower left behind the wall, in one case, the expected dinosaur would emerge from the cup, and in the other an unexpected replica of the flower would emerge.

Since infants' visual attention is drawn to whatever they find most interesting at any given moment, the amount of time they spent looking at the different objects was measured to determine whether the unexpected outcome had any effect upon their interest level. As was hypothesized, the infants stared longer at the unexpected outcome than at the expected outcome, indicating that they were aware of what the outcome logically should have been according to the disjunctive syllogism, "not A, therefore B."

As a test to determine whether inferences were being made by the infants at appropriate stages throughout the vignette, or if they only reacted to a violation of expectation at the big cup reveal at the conclusion, the researchers analyzed their oculomotor responses at stages where inferences were called for. Significantly, the infants' pupils dilated more when the scene called for an inference than when it did not, indicating increased cognitive activity during these stages.

Even though reasoning through the process of elimination is a rudimentary form of logic, the authors of the paper point out that it is this same form of reasoning that is most favored by the master logician Sherlock Holmes as he undertakes a "case-by-case analysis of different possibilities, excluding alternatives until the culprit is found." The results of this study suggest that the sort of logical reasoning that astonishes us in a Sherlock Holmes is actually not a rare or even an acquired ability, but rather innate and universal, and that "intuitive and stable logical structures involved in the interpretation of dynamic scenes may be essential parts of the fabric of the mind."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Research Shows That Babies Think Logically

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beloved pediatrician Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, who died recently at the age of 99, established his reputation by arguing that babies are not "lumps of clay," as was the prevailing view when he entered the medical field in the 1940s, but rather complex expressive beings whose behavior is "purposeful and meaningful."

# data[].attributes.headline
4 Keys to Resolving Conflict with your Kid

# data[].attributes.subject
4 Keys to Resolving Conflict with your Kid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every parent knows the nightly ritual: You read your child a bedtime story, say "lights out," and then brace for the storm of "I do not want to go to bed!!!" Night after night, we parents all suffer from this same malady, until we finally lose that last sliver of patience and snap back at our child with some not-so-nice words. Our child eventually falls asleep, but we lay awake worrying about what we said and wondering whether we may just be the single worst parent in the world.

You're not. In reality, every parent and child fights - and a whole new set of tools offers powerful methods to resolve conflict, whether you are struggling to put your four-year-old to sleep or tussling with your teenager over screen time. Here are four crucial guidelines:

1. Don't fall into "vertigo." Perhaps no relationship in life is as intense as that between parent and child. So as conflict intensifies, you risk having the tension emotionally consume you, to the extent that you can think of nothing else in your life. I call this experience vertigo, for you feel like the world is spinning out of control. Every time you try to regain focus, your child makes a new demand of you or a child lobs a punch at a sibling, pulling you one step further into that emotional swirl.

The best way to break out of vertigo is to avoid getting into it. As tensions escalate, ask yourself one critical question: "Do I really want to get caught up in this conflict?" Most likely, the answer will be no. So take a moment to regain perspective: Take a deep breath and imagine yourself an hour from now, alone in the shower or in your bed relaxing and reading a book. Or imagine yourself on the moon looking down at your interaction. Is it really worth getting so worked up over your kid's bedtime? Probably not.

2. Appreciate your child's concerns. We parents tend to think that we know all the right answers, especially when we are in arguments with our children. But just because we have power over our kids doesn't mean that there is no validity to their perspectives. Kids often have a good rationale motivating their behavior, and it pays to take the time to inquire, listen, and try to understand. When your ten-year-old starts shouting that you treat him unfairly, don't just defend your behavior. Ask why he thinks that way. He may be jealous of the leniency you show in disciplining his younger brothers, or he may be making a call for more attention.

3. Give your child some autonomy. Imagine how disempowering it can feel to be a child: Your parents tell you what time to wake up, what to eat, when to sleep, and even how to talk. Unsurprisingly, then, children want some freedom to determine their own destiny. Even my four-year-old son Liam will break out in a temper tantrum if I choose his dessert for him. "Daddy! I want to choose!!!" So the next time your child asks if she can stay up an extra half hour, don't just say no. Ask why. Listen to her reason, and give her a choice: "If you stay up later tonight, you will have to go to bed earlier tomorrow night. Which do you want?"

4. Resist the repetition compulsion. Notice the patterns of conflict that you tend to repeat when in a fight with a child. In my own family, I noticed a common pattern develop with my ten-year-old son, Noah. The moment he started to tease his younger brothers, I would immediately step in with tough words: "Noah ... stop!" He tended to ignore those words and persist with his behavior, which undermined my authority but elevated his status in his brothers' eyes. Of course, I would then further assert my authority, again demanding he stop. Inevitably, our conversation would end in a verbal clash.

But our relationship was not doomed. The key is to notice a dysfunctional pattern of conflict and commit to changing one or two actions in that process. In my relationship with Noah, I came to understand our typical pattern of mutual confrontation, and I sought to change my behavior. When Noah next teased his brothers, I stepped in and asked him to stop. He refused. But instead of escalating my demand, I asked his advice on how we might deal with the situation. He appeared caught off guard, and told me that his younger brothers had been invading his space on the couch. Nowwe were talking, listening, and effectively communicating. By asking Noah for advice, I jolted us out of our typical pattern of discord, which created space for us to have a more productive conversation.
So take action today, tomorrow, and the next.
As I write this article, I realize that the advice I am sharing is as much for me as for you. My three boys are loving and adorable, but they certainly test their daddy's patience on a daily basis. Patterns of conflict are hard to change. But with conscientious effort, you can avoid falling prey to vertigo, to the repetition compulsion, and to the usual fight. As you keep trying, your fights will start to feel more manageable, and your relationships will feel more constructive. And with enough effort, you may just be able to master the fine art of conflict resolution by the time your child grows up.
To discover additional practical tools for resolving your life's toughest conflicts- whether with your children, spouse, or colleagues - check out Dr. Shapiro's new book, Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts (Viking, 2016).
"Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: 4 Keys to Resolving Conflict with Your Kid" (the original title of this article) originally appeared on Brightly and was reprinted here with permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Keys to Resolving Conflict with Your Kid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every parent knows the nightly ritual: You read your child a bedtime story, say "lights out," and then brace for the storm of "I do not want to go to bed!!!" Night after night, we parents all suffer from this same malady, until we finally lose that last sliver of patience and snap back at our child with some not-so-nice words.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Fathers Treat their Sons and Daughters Differently?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Fathers Treat their Sons and Daughters Differently?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child-rearing practices vary widely across different cultures, and views about gender differences change over time, but there do seem to be some clear consistencies in the way boys and girls are treated, especially during the first few years of life. According to Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory of gender development, parents often have clear gender stereotypes about "appropriate" behavior for different genders and rely on punishment and rewards to ensure that their children abide by these expectations. Boys are often discouraged from playing with dolls or acting "effeminately," while girls are often prevented from doing any physically risky activities.

Some studies suggest that mothers talk more with their daughters and actively prevent them from any activity that might lead to their being injured. On the other hand, both mothers and fathers appear more prone to engage in "rough and tumble" play (RTP) with boys rather than girls. There also appear to be gender differences in how parents respond to emotional outbursts. In a 2005 research study, fathers were found to be more receptive to daughters when they showed submissive emotions or prosocial behavior, while they were more likely to respond to boys when they acted out or showed temper tantrums.

It is often difficult to do this kind of research, considering that most studies looking at how parents interact with their young children have focused on mothers rather than fathers. Also, parents tend to be reluctant to admit that they treat their sons and daughters differently, especially in an era of greater gender equality. For this reason, depending on self-report alone tends to provide a distorted view of the way parents actually raise their children and instill gender roles and values.

A new study published in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience provides one of the first in-depth analyses of how fathers interact with their children and what this might mean in terms of brain physiology. A team of researchers led by James K. Rilling of Emory University's Center for Translational Social Neuroscience recruited 69 men (average age: 33) who were parents of children aged one to two years; 34 of the fathers had a daughter and 35 had a son, with no significant demographic differences between the two groups.

The study began with naturalistic photographs being taken of each of the children showing a variety of facial expressions corresponding to different emotions. The fathers were then given a mobile recording device, the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR), that intermittently records snippets of conversations and other ambient sounds while the participants wearing them go about their lives. Essentially, the EAR is meant to produce an audio log of the wearer's day.

For the purpose of the research, the fathers were asked to wear the EAR on a weekend day and a weekday. The EAR devices were set to record in 50-second bursts every nine minutes, from 8 a.m. Sunday morning to 8 a.m. Tuesday morning and, when not being worn, were kept charged in the child's bedroom. On average, each participant produced 158 audio files that could be used for the purpose of the study.

Each 50-second audio file was independently rated by two research assistants, whose ratings were correlated to determine adequate validity. Coders were instructed to record all words spoken by the fathers in the files and a special coding system was developed to rate each file. Along with recording whether the father was talking to a child, friend, or spouse, each recorded expression was rated on whether it corresponded to one of the following categories:

Father affective expression (laughing, singing, complaining)

Toddler affective expression (laughing/giggling, fussing/crying)

Father-toddler activities (reading, nonphysical play, physical play)

Paternal caregiving behaviors (engaged attending to the child, showing empathy or affection, expressing praise and encouragement)

For fathers with more than one child (the average number of children per family was two), only those expressions directed at the target child were rated.

Along with wearing the EAR on the designated days, the fathers also completed a self-report questionnaire on parenting. In a third laboratory session, the fathers provided blood and saliva samples and underwent structural and functional MRIs of their brains. During the fMRI sessions, each father was shown a series of photographs of their children with different facial expressions, interspersed with photographs of unknown adults and children.

Results of the auditory file analyses showed significant difference in language and behavior patterns between fathers depending on whether they were interacting with sons or daughters. As expected, fathers were more likely to engage in rough and tumble play with sons rather than daughters. This included tickling, poking, and tumbling behavior that was often aggressive in nature. When interacting with daughters, however, fathers were more likely to engage in singing or whistling, and were also more emotionally and socially responsive.

There were also significant differences in the kind of language fathers used with sons and daughters. Fathers were more likely to use achievement-related words with their sons-"top," "win," "proud"-while using more emotion-laden and analytical words with their daughters. This included words relating to sadness or words relating to the body. Based on behavioral results alone, fathers appear to be reinforcing gender expectations by encouraging girls to be more empathetic while encouraging boys to be more competitive.

In looking at the MRI findings, there appeared to be significant differences in brain response between fathers of daughters and fathers of sons. Fathers of daughters showed much higher activation in visual processing areas of the brain than fathers of sons when shown happy facial pictures of their children. They also showed greater activation in the orbitofrontal cortex linked to emotional regulation. Fathers of sons also showed significant brain activation when presented with neutral facial expressions which are often associated with rough and tumble play, though the exact reason for this is still unclear. On the other hand, fathers showed identical responding when presented with pictures of either their sons or daughters with sad facial expressions.

Overall, these results highlight many of the differences seen in how fathers interact with their male and female children, and what it might mean for gender role development in children. It also demonstrates the value of EAR technology in exploring how parents play with their children, something that is often difficult to do without making parents and children feel self-conscious. Using the EAR also avoids problems with self-report data, which many parents might be unwilling to answer honestly.

Still, while these results are consistent with previous studies looking at paternal behavior and gender roles, they also raise interesting questions about cause and effect: Do fathers treat sons and daughters differently because of their own gender expectations? Or are fathers simply responding to social and behavioral cues linked to biological differences between boys and girls? As James Rilling and his colleagues point out, males are exposed to higher levels of fetal testosterone, which has been shown to be linked to a preference for rough and tumble play. It also influences playmate selection so that both boys and girls high in fetal testosterone are more likely to prefer a more aggressive play style, something that may influence how fathers interact with them. More research is definitely needed to explore these questions further.

While most early childhood research has focused on how mothers interact with their children, this study yields some intriguing findings. Not only is there clear evidence of neural systems in the brains of fathers that respond in different ways depending on the gender of their children, but research using the EAR demonstrates differences in how fathers interact with their children and what it could mean to their later social and intellectual development. More studies such as this one may provide important clues about gender differences and the general well-being of children as they grow older.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Fathers Treat Their Sons and Daughters Differently?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child-rearing practices vary widely across different cultures, and views about gender differences change over time, but there do seem to be some clear consistencies in the way boys and girls are treated, especially during the first few years of life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The way we praise our children has profound and lasting consequences, yet many parents are doing it wrong. (Even the ones who've heard of the research I'm about to describe.)
"Straight As again? You're so smart!" "Look at that drawing. You're such a good artist!"
Many parents assume that it's good to praise children's abilities because it boosts their confidence and self-esteem, which in turn paves the way to success. However, a growing body of research suggests that praising children for their ability destroys their love of learning, their ability to persist in the face of failure, and their chances for success.
Fixed vs. Growth Mindset
To understand how praise can have such negative consequences, you need to understand the work of Carol Dweck. A social psychologist from Stanford University, Dweck has spent most of her research career studying mindsets. She discovered that there are two fundamental mindsets that affect the way you view the world. A fixed mindset is the belief that your qualities, like intelligence and athletic ability, are carved in stone and can't be changed. You're either smart, or you're not. You're either good at sports, or you belong on the sideline. A growth mindset is the belief that your qualities can be cultivated; you can expand your abilities through effort, good strategies, and guidance from others.

The two mindsets affect how people view success and failure. People with a fixedmindset believe that success is due to one's ability, and failure is due to one's lack of ability. As a result, people with a fixed mindset are deflated by failure. They shy away from challenges because they don't want to risk making mistakes and looking bad.

People with a growthmindset attribute failure to a lack of effort or skill - things that can be improved through perseverance. When they fail, they don't view themselves as failures. They believe that mistakes are just problems to be solved.

As you might expect, mindset has a profound influence on success in school, work, relationships, and many other areas of life.
How Praise Affects Mindset
Praising children's ability reinforces a fixed mindset. When we praise children's ability after they experience success (by telling them they're smart after getting an A on a test, for example), it send the message that success is due to ability. It also send the unintentional message that failure is due to lack of ability. This causes children to fear failure and give up when things get tough.

In one classic study, Dweck and her colleague, Claudia Mueller, gave fifth graders a set of moderately difficult questions from an IQ test. All of the children were praised for their performance (which was quite good, overall). Some of them were praised for their intelligence: "Wow...that's a really good score. You must be smart at this." Others were praised for their effort: "Wow...that's a really good score. You must have worked really hard." As expected, children praised for being smart developed a fixed mindset. When they experienced failure on a second set of very difficult problems, they lost their motivation and did poorly on a third set of easier problems. In contrast, children praised for their effort developed a growth mindset and were persistent in the face of failure. Their motivation and performance didn't suffer.
How to Foster a Growth Mindset
If praising children's abilities is a bad idea, what's a parent to do? Dweck says that we should use process praise. When children succeed, we should praise the process that led to the success:
"I noticed how hard you studied for your English test. It really paid off!" "You're finally riding your bike! Way to go! I liked how you picked yourself up after every fall and keep trying until you figured it out." "That's a beautiful painting. I like how you experimented with different colors."
When children fail, we shouldn't praise their effort as a consolation prize ("You tried your best!"). Instead, we should encourage them to learn and grow from the experience:
"I know you studied hard for that test. Let's see if we can find other study strategies that yield better results." "You can't paint a masterpiece on your first try. Keep practicing. Every time you paint, you're becoming a better artist."
Failure offers tremendous opportunities for growth. Don't rob your child of those opportunities. Don't be afraid of a little constructive criticism.

What about the kids who do well without even trying? Don't praise them. Instead, encourage them to take on more challenging tasks.
Beware of False Growth Mindset
As the mindset concept gained popularity in parenting and education circles, Dweck noticed that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of growth mindset. Many people believe that you should praise children's effort regardless of their performance, but that's wrong. Praising effort is meaningless when children are not doing well.

In the new edition of her book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Dweck says that we should praise the learning process that led to the successful outcome, and tie that process to the outcome. Effort is part of the learning process, but it's not the only part. We should acknowledge children's strategies, too. Help them understand how their behavior affected the outcome (e.g., "You tried lot of different ways of balancing the bike and, because you keep trying, you finally found the right way!"). When children succeed, praise the strategy. When they fail, help them find another strategy.

Dweck concludes that the best way for parents to raise successful children is to teach them "to love challenges, be intrigued by mistakes, enjoy effort, seek new strategies, and keep on learning."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The way we praise our children has profound and lasting consequences, yet many parents are doing it wrong. (Even the ones who've heard of the research I'm about to describe.) "Straight As again? You're so smart!" "Look at that drawing. You're such a good artist!"